Svend Robinson

[Foreign Affairs, March 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In the fight against atypical pneumonia or SARS the World Health Organization plays an absolutely critical role. Yet, when Taiwan asked the World Health Organization for help to assist its 23 million people, the WHO said no since Taiwan is not a member.

Will the minister now listen to MPs on all sides of the House and support Taiwan's request for observer status at the upcoming meeting of the World Health Assembly in Geneva? With the lives of Taiwanese and Canadians at stake will he stop hiding behind the one China policy and support Taiwan at the World Health Organization?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. He spoke of the $50 million, I believe he called it a security contingency reserve. Would the Solicitor General, together with his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, be prepared to fund out of that $50 million contingency reserve for security the request that has been made by the International Association of Fire Fighters here in Canada?

Firefighters are asking for $500,000 to implement a program that would enable the education of Canadian firefighters, from coast to coast to coast, precisely in the areas that the minister is talking about, in the areas of responding to biological, chemical, radiological and, let us hope it never happens, nuclear problems. In many cases firefighters are the first responders.

This program, which is already in place in the United States, should be expanded to Canada. The International Association of Fire Fighters has been attempting to get support from the Liberal government. A number of members on that side of the House have said that they support them, but firefighters will be back on the Hill at the end of next month.

Specifically, will the minister work with his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, who is responsible for OCIPEP, the office that is co-ordinating in this area, to ensure that the $500,000 which is needed to enable this program to go ahead in Canada will in fact be allocated to the firefighters of Canada?

[Business of the House, March 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that it is pressure from the Turkish government that is driving this policy because KADEK is a democratic and peaceful organization. I would point out that the PKK, as the member knows, renounced any armed struggle over three years ago.

I am concerned that since Canada placed KADEK on the list of terrorist organizations Kurds in Canada have been suffering. CSIS has hassled them. Many of them have been denied citizenship or other immigration status or documents because of past involvement in what is now considered a terrorist organization.

I am concerned that possible involvement with HADEP, the legitimate, legal political party that Turkey recently banned, may give rise to a harassment of those Kurds in Canada who have supported the work of HADEP, work which I strongly support as well.

Does the member not recognize that CSIS and the government are acting on outdated information here, and that they are acting in a way that is causing extreme hardship and unfairness to the Kurdish community in Canada?

[Business of the House, March 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, Kurdish Canadians, indeed Kurds around the world, are deeply concerned about the potential for grave tragedy throughout Kurdistan.

On December 13 of last year I asked the Solicitor General a question in the House concerning the listing of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, now known as KADEK, which stands for Kurdistan Democracy and Freedom Congress. I asked the government why it was now criminalizing Canadians who want to support the peaceful struggle of the Kurds for justice and human rights, for respect for their language and culture and for an end to the jailing of Kurdish MPs like Leyla Zana. I asked the government why it added this peaceful organization which quite some time ago renounced the armed struggle for justice for the Kurdish people. The answer from the Solicitor General was totally unacceptable.

I want to highlight today, in the brief time I have, a number of other very serious concerns affecting the Kurdish community. Recently Turkey banned a legal party known as KADEK. It was a deliberate provocation by the Turkish government, there is no doubt about it. It was hoping that Kurds in Turkey would react violently, thereby giving the Turks an excuse to crack down and for invading Iraqi Kurdistan to “root out the terrorists”. Five KADEK mayors in Turkey have already been jailed. Others have been interrogated and/or detained, but so far there has been no violent reaction from the Kurds in Turkey.

We all know that the Turks have a terrible history of repression and brutality directed at the Kurds within Turkey. They have destroyed villages. Currently Human Rights Watch has pointed out that they are refusing to allow thousands of villagers to return to their homes three years after the hostilities have ended.

Now, with the United States led invasion of Iraq, there is a very serious concern that the Turkish government may take advantage of this to invade Iraqi Kurdistan. This would have a disastrous impact on the Kurds in northern Iraq.

I am here today to call on the government to not only revert its decision with respect to the listing of KADEK, but to call on our government to speak out forcefully and call on the Turkish government and all other neighbouring countries not to intervene militarily in Iraqi Kurdistan for any reason.

Our government must also call for the protection of the people of Iraqi Kurdistan from a possible retaliatory use of chemical and/or biological weapons by the Iraqi regime. Our government must call as well for the recognition of the right to self-determination for the Kurdish people.

This is a critical time for the Kurdish people, particularly in northern Iraq. They have carved out communities there in which there is a degree of autonomy, and we must not allow the Turkish government to move in and destroy that.

It is also critically important that the Kurdish government and international relief organizations receive the desperately needed aid to handle the thousands and even tens of thousands of Iraqis who may cross into Iraqi Kurdistan at any time.

Today once again I want to appeal to our government to speak out. Its silence has been deafening. It should call on the United States and on the United Kingdom to demand that Turkey not in any way take advantage of this opportunity. It should make sure no deals have been done between the United States and Turkey to allow the United States to overfly its territory in exchange for a licence to the Turks to invade Iraqi Kurdistan.

The Kurds were betrayed once in 1991. They must not be betrayed again.

[Health, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it may have suspended operations, but it still said it is okay to charge $2,500 for access to these clinical trials.

My supplementary is for the same minister. Three years ago, 15 year old Vanessa Young died because she was not warned about serious risks from a drug called Prepulsid. Now there is another drug being peddled in Canada by Janssen-Ortho, Eprex, which is still on the market despite grave risks with subcutaneous use by anemia patients with kidney disease. Why will the minister not join many other countries in Europe and Australia in contraindicating this dangerous use of Eprex in Canada? Will it take another death before the minister finally acts?

[Health, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The minister knows that Health Canada officials have now confirmed that it is okay for a private company to charge $2,500 for PET scans for heart patients, but not for cancer. This means that the rich can buy access to clinical trials and it is an assault on the foundations of medicare.

Instead of denying access to this important diagnostic test, will the minister ban companies from charging for clinical trials? Will she clearly include these medically necessary diagnostic services under the Canada Health Act, as Roy Romanow has recommended?

[Adjournment Proceedings, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely appalling. This is a shameful betrayal of Canadian citizens and of the rights of Canadians to be protected against this deceitful and false advertising. The government is saying that it needs more time to study. How much more time will pass? How many more lives will be lost while the tobacco industry pushes this dishonest advertising on Canadians? Canadians look to the government to stand up and be counted on this issue.

Just last month the World Health Organization completed negotiations toward a treaty text for a framework convention. The text calls for a ban on misleading terms, which may very well include light and mild. Just this month, as I said before, a U.S. court found Philip Morris in violation of consumer protection laws and said that it showed a reckless disregard for consumers rights.

My question once again is for the parliamentary secretary. Why is the government waiting to take action on this? Is it because of the threats under the NAFTA, chapter 11? Why will it not act now to protect the health of Canadians?

[Adjournment Proceedings, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on December 12 of last year, I rose in the House to ask a question of the Minister of Health concerning the promise that the government had made some time previously. In fact it was the former minister of health, now the Minister of Industry, who made a promise to ban light and mild labels on cigarette packages.

Since then, I pointed out that big tobacco companies threatened the government to sue under chapter 11 of NAFTA if the ban went ahead. I asked the Minister for International Trade when the government would stand up for the health of Canadians, ban these deceptive labels and get rid of NAFTA laws that allowed big corporations to threaten to sue the Canadian government under chapter 11 for protecting the health and environment of Canadians.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health stood up and gave one of the most incomprehensible replies that I can recall in my years in the House. He basically said that this was a very complex question, it was a difficult issue and he would look into it.

Today, the hon. parliamentary secretary is here in the House and I hope he has had an opportunity over the course of the last three months to enlighten himself as to the seriousness of this issue. What we are talking about is the need to ensure that tobacco companies are unable to engage in deceptive advertising. The European Union has already moved on this front and as I understand it the European Union is banning these labels of light and mild on cigarettes this year. I believe Brazil has already banned these labels as well.

We in the New Democratic Party have to ask for what the government is waiting. Why is it allowing the tobacco lobby to push it around at the expense of the health of Canadians? The fact of the matter is that the cigarette industry is a killer industry. Far from backing off on this, health groups across Canada have urged the government to toughen up the regulation, which was proposed many months ago. In fact it was in December 2001 that the former minister of health proposed a regulation.

However, what is happening is that Canadians are dying as a result of the false belief that light and mild products are safer than full strength cigarettes. The Non-Smokers' Rights Association and many other organizations, including Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, have urged the government to finally move ahead on this. It promised to take action. What is the delay? Why is it? Is it knuckling under to the threats of the tobacco companies that it will be sued under NAFTA's chapter 11?

We want answers to these questions and Canadians want answers to these questions today. There are major lawsuits underway already in the United States and Israel which accuse the tobacco industry of consumer fraud for its mislabelling of cigarettes. A major landmark decision just in the last few days in Chicago reaffirmed this.

I am calling on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health to stand up on behalf of the health of Canadians and to have stronger regulations to make it clear that this is not about high tar and low tar. We should get rid of this deception, these illusions, this dishonest, deceitful advertising by the tobacco industry, ban it once and for all and stand up and protect the health of Canadians.

[Health, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Over three years ago, the government set up an industry dominated task force to write its own rules for voluntary labelling of genetically engineered food.

Now that the head of that group admits that it is going nowhere, that it is a joke, when will the government finally listen to the over 80% of Canadians who want to know what they eat and agree to the mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods? When will the government stop shilling for the biotech industry and stand up for Canadians?

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the constituents of the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke care deeply about tough and effective gun control. I am also sure her constituents would want to ensure that screening of applicants for guns, providing safety training, offering an online registry to help the police do their jobs, efforts to combat gun smuggling, provide stiff sentences for those who commit crimes using guns, efforts to promote safe storage of firearms and individual accountability for gun ownership are promoted through the program.

However, what the Canadian Alliance is suggesting in its motion is that every penny of money that goes toward the gun control program, not just for the registry but funds that go toward licensing and the screening of gun applicants who may have a history of violent crime or a history of domestic violence, the Canadian Alliance wants to cut off all that funding as well. That is what the Alliance Party is suggesting to Parliament.

Members are agreeing that we should take away the tools from the police to screen gun applicants who may have a history of violence. I say that is an outrageous attack on public safety in this country. That would be the effect of the Canadian Alliance motion. It ignores the pleas of groups like the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canadian Medical Association and many others.

My question for the hon. member is the following. Why is it that the Canadian Alliance later today is seriously suggesting that we take away every penny of money that the police would have to ensure that those who apply to use lethal weapons do not have a history of violent crimes or domestic violence? Why that abandonment of her constituents and the constituents of Canadian Alliance members?